December 26, 2007

SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS ABOUT THE CANDIDATES: People want to know who I endorse, or who I'd vote for. I don't do endorsements -- I think they're presumptuous in newspapers, and I'd feel silly telling people how they should vote at this point. Most of my readers probably know more than me anyway. But since people keep asking, here are some thoughts. Since they're kind of long, click "read more" to read them.

Fred Thompson: I like him. And he's a home-state guy.. He's run a pretty substantive, issue-oriented campaign if you actually read his position statements. Not many people have, though. And that's part of the problem. I've dealt with his campaign behind the scenes trying to set up podcast interviews, etc., and while they're nice folks, and things seem to have gotten better, it seemed to me this summer that he was failing at the key task of a President: Putting together a good team and getting it to run smoothly. I know enough about management skills to recognize their importance, and Fred hasn't been displaying those enough. Otherwise I probably would have signed on to "Law Professors for Fred," as Eugene Volokh, Jonathan Adler, et al., have done. I see what attracts them, but I still have my concerns. Sometimes I think he's been running for VP all along -- in which case he's actually run a terrific campaign . . . .

Romney: Loads of management skills. Not so much on the other stuff. Some of his positions are okay -- his abortion/stem cell squishiness, which bothers a lot of Republicans, is okay with me -- but he's bad on Second Amendment issues and though he's trying to talk a better game I don't know how much I believe him. My friends in Massachusetts seem to like him regardless of their political stripe, which is a mark in his favor. He comes across as a bit too rehearsed and polished, and that puts me off, although if he were really a faker I guess he'd be better at faking sincerity, too . . . .

McCain: It's easy to see why the press loves him. He's engaging, always finds something flattering to say to you, and really does give pretty good answers to questions. He's been great on the war and national security, and he's excellent on Second Amendment issues. It's hard for me to forgive him on campaign finance reform. Immigration isn't a big issue of mine, but I'm sometimes offended by the doubletalk of pro-amnesty folks, and McCain hasn't been Mr. Straight Talk on that subject. Managerial skills? Well, he can run a campaign. But he's never been much of an executive otherwise.

Huckabee: He was very engaging when we talked to him -- he's a likable guy -- but the more I know about him the more I realize he's pretty much my opposite on every issue except the Second Amendment. He's basically a big-government liberal on social issues, a Carteresque talk-talker on national security, and a nanny-stater in general. I'd be strongly tempted to vote for Hillary over Huckabee, as she's not much worse on domestic issues, and would probably be more strongly checked by Congressional Republicans, and I think she'd be better on national security. Governors are supposed to have executive skills, and I think that Huckabee actually does. Some question of whether Arkansas political culture lends itself to honest open government at the federal level, though. Prior experience suggests otherwise . . . .

Giuliani: Great on national security, and also someone with some management skills. Bad on Second Amendment issues, though he's made a slightly more convincing shift than Romney on that subject. Also, alas, a nanny-stater -- here's my post on his absurd stand against sparklers -- though I don't know how much of that would play out at the national level. While the financial scandals aimed at him have so far seemed overblown, I worry a bit.

Ron Paul: My thoughts on Ron Paul, good and bad, are here. At any rate, I don't see him as a viable nominee.

Hillary Clinton: Downsides: Nannyish -- almost Nurse Ratched-ish -- view of government. Arkansas politics. Most polarizing figure in the race. Upsides: A grownup. Almost certainly better than Obama, Richardson, Edwards, Huckabee, or Paul on national security. (Plus, this upside) On the other hand, hasn't handled pressure well in the campaign. There's a lot more pressure when you're actually President.

Obama: Appealing guy. Smart. No management experience. No foreign policy expertise, producing a tendency to say dumb things. (One of my Muslim students liked him until he started talking about nuking Pakistan -- now she's deadset against him.) My feeling is that he's a guy who would be a great candidate in 4-8 years, who hit the race a bit too early. He might still be a good President, but I'd be worried, especially in the first couple of years, that he'd make a costly major miscue. Also, while he talks a good game, I think he's really about as much a nanny as Hillary. Upside: Handles pressure better than Hillary, based on recent events.

Edwards: I thought he was strong in 2004 -- in fact, I thought an Edwards/Kerry ticket would have been better than Kerry/Edwards. The John Edwards of this campaign cycle seems prone to unforced errors, though, from the expensive house, to the bad campaign hires, to . . . well, almost everytime he's in the news it's some sort of mistake. Even my yellow-dog Democrat trial lawyer friend Doug Weinstein, previously a big Edwards fan, has soured.

Bill Richardson: A grownup. Unlike the other Democratic candidates, good on the Second Amendment. Management experience at both the state and federal levels. Bad on the war, though I don't think his current bug-out strategy on Iraq would rule if he became President. Downsides: Largely charisma-free, even by the standards of this not-very-charismatic crowd.

I don't know what these impressions are worth, really, but here they are. If you want to express your own preferences, why not vote in the Straw Poll (voting widget is in the upper right) and let's see what you think.

Meanwhile, though it's not exactly an endorsement, my vote is already spoken for! Er, assuming he's actually on the ballot . . . .

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll emails: "When I interviewed Tammy Bruce for PJM Political, she also stated that
she'd vote for Hillary over Huckabee."

ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader wonders what I think of Hillary on healthcare. I thought the "Nurse Ratched" reference answered that. And reader Walton Allen emails about Duncan Hunter: 'I know he only has like .5% of the vote, but you didn't mention him in that small write-up. Was just curious to know your impression of him....He's been on my local stations program in Dallas called "The Wells Report" on 570 KLIF in Dallas at least 5 times. Sounds like he actually represents what people want and will actually build a fence."

We talked to Duncan Hunter, and he seemed like a good guy, but I don't see him going anywhere. I could be wrong, of course.

MORE: Brendan Loy wonders what I think about Biden. Nice guy. I defended him against the Kinnock-plagiarism charges, which were silly and unfair. But while he's smarter and more engaging than Chris Dodd, I see his chances as about the same.